Opinion
19-70952
07-22-2021
LINO PLAYAS-SERRANO, AKA Lino Playas Serrano, AKA Juan Carlos Salgado, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-154-205
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lino Playas-Serrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Playas-Serrano's untimely and number barred motion to reopen based on changed country conditions where he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) ("A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the respondent establishes a prima facie case of eligibility for the underlying relief sought."); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant's "desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground"). We lack jurisdiction to consider Playas-Serrano's claim based on his family's landownership and his eligibility for CAT relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not raised to BIA).
We reject as unsupported by the record Playas-Serrano's contentions that the BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his motion.
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.